© 1999 ISAST LEONARDO MUSIC JOURNAL, Vol. 9, pp. 35–42, 1999 35

RESPONSIBILITY

The year 1999 marks the thirty-first anniversary of Re-union, a performance in which games of chess determinedthe form and acoustical ambience of a musical event. Theconcert—held at the Ryerson Theatre in Toronto, Canada—began at 8:30 on the evening of 5 March 1968, and con-cluded at approximately 1:00 the next morning. Principalplayers were John Cage, who conceived (but did not actually“compose”) the work; Marcel Duchamp and his wife Alexina(Teeny); and composers David Behrman, Gordon Mumma,David Tudor and I, who also designed and constructed theelectronic chessboard, completing it only the night beforethe performance. Except for a brief curtain call with MerceCunningham and Dance Company in Buffalo, NY the follow-ing month [1], Duchamp made his last public appearance—in the role of chess master—in Reunion.

MISCONCEPTIONSIn the intervening 31 years, more fiction than fact regardingReunion has appeared in documents about Cage andDuchamp, even from the pens of authors with prestigiousreputations. Nicolas Slonimsky wrote in the 1978 edition ofBaker’s Biographical Dictionary of Musicians:

He [Cage] also became interested in chess and played demon-stration games with Marcel Duchamps [sic], the famouspainter turned chessmaster, on chessboards designed byLowell Cross to operate on aleatory principles with the aid ofa computer and a system of laser rays. [2]

Cage and Duchamp played only one public “demonstra-tion” game, the one in Reunion, and I have built only onesuch chessboard to date (I am building a second one in1999). We used no computer in conjunction with that chess-board and we used no system of “laser rays.” (My develop-ment of the first “laser light show” began during the follow-ing fall and winter [1968–1969]; I collaborated in that projectwith the sculptor and physicist C.D. Jeffries at the Universityof California, Berkeley and, eventually, with Tudor [3].)

In his Cage biography, The Roaring Silence—John Cage: ALife, David Revill wrote:

Early in 1968 Cage realized Reunion. A number of sound-sys-tems which operated continuously were prepared by Tudor,Mumma, and David Behrman. The sounds varied according tothe position of pieces on a specially prepared chessboard built

by Lowell Cross of the Poly-technical Institute in Toronto. Thegates switched by the pieces trig-gered a passage of music by Cage,Tudor, Mumma, or Behrman;since the sound-systems operatedall the time, even the reappear-ance of a move would lead to a dif-ferent sound.

Teeny Duchamp looked onwhile Cage and Marcel Duchampplayed the game. The evening be-gan with a large audience. Cageand Duchamp adjourned after

R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y

Reunion: John Cage, MarcelDuchamp, Electronic Musicand Chess

Lowell Cross

Lowell Cross (teacher, author, recording producer), School of Music, 2057 Music Build-ing, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1793, U.S.A. E-mail: <lowell-cross@uiowa.edu>.

A B S T R A C T

The author chronicles his in-volvement in Reunion, a 1968 col-laborative performance featuringJohn Cage, Marcel Duchamp andTeeny Duchamp, with electronicmusic by David Behrman, GordonMumma, David Tudor and LowellCross. After addressing somemisconceptions about Reunion,the author outlines specific detailsabout the conditions surroundingthe performance and the sound-distributing chessboard he built,then offers an interpretation ofthe event.

Fig. 1. John Cage installs contact microphones inside the chessboardwhile David Tudor and Lowell Cross confer. (Photo: Shigeko Kubota)

36 Cross, Reunion

RESPONSIBILITY

several hours when the house wasempty. Next morning they finished thematch; Duchamp had given himself thehandicap of a knight, but still beat hispupil [4].

Revill’s description contains somevery misleading statements. There weresound-generating systems prepared by Tu-dor, Mumma, Behrman and me; no pas-sages of music by Cage were presentedto the inputs of the chessboard. I had noaffiliation with [Ryerson] PolytechnicalInstitute; however, the performance wasin the theatre on the Ryerson campus.At the time I was a graduate student andResearch Associate in the ElectronicMusic Studios at the University ofToronto. I based my design of the chess-board on photoresistors, not gates ortriggering circuits.

Revill also gives the erroneous impres-sion that the event encompassed onlyone game. In actuality, Teeny Duchampwatched her husband (White) defeatCage (Black) within a half hour—de-spite his handicap of only one knight—

whereupon Cage (White) and Teeny(Black) played a second game untilabout 1:00 A.M. in the presence of a wan-ing audience of less than 10 persons,one of whom shouted “Encore!”Duchamp memorized the last movesand positions of the chesspieces in thisunfinished game, eventually won byTeeny in New York a few days later.There is no record of the moves in ei-ther of the games of Reunion.

The following brief description, bythe Duchamp biographer CalvinTomkins, is close to being accurate, asfar as it goes:

Entitled Reunion, the event consisted ofCage and Duchamp (and then Cageand Teeny) playing chess on a boardthat had been equipped with contactmicrophones; whenever a piece wasmoved, it set off a gamut of amplifiedelectronic noises and oscilloscopic im-ages on television screens visible to theaudience [5].

The functions of the chessboard actu-ally depended upon the covering or un-

covering of its 64 photoresistors (oneper square), not upon the nine contactmicrophones installed inside. At Cage’sinsistence, I provided internal locationsfor contact microphones so that the au-dience could hear the physical moves ofthe pieces on the board if the appropri-ate conjunctions of inputs, outputs andplayer movements were (by chance) tooccur (Fig. 1). At most, those soundswere soft “thunks,” even when greatlyamplified. The oscilloscopic imagesemanated from my modified mono-chrome and color television screens,which provided visual monitoring ofsome of the sound events passingthrough the chessboard.

PRECONDITIONSOne cold evening in late January orearly February 1968, John Cage tele-phoned me at the Spadina Road apart-ment in Toronto where my wife Noraand I lived. He had already heard theresults of electronic sound-motion pro-

Fig. 2. During the game, Marcel Duchamp savors his cigar, whileTeeny Duchamp and John Cage smoke cigarettes. (Photo: ShigekoKubota)

Fig. 3. The concert program for Reunion.

Cross, Reunion 37

RESPONSIBILITY

duced by the circuitry of my “Stirrer”[6]. Cage asked if I would build for himan electronic chessboard that would se-lect and spatially distribute soundsaround a concert audience as a gameunfolded. Because I was in the processof completing my graduate work at theUniversity of Toronto, at first I politelyrefused his request. He said, “Perhapsyou will change your mind if I tell youwho my chess partner will be.” After Isaid “OK–,” Cage said, “MarcelDuchamp.”

I was persuaded, of course, and I im-mediately began to design the chess-board, thesis or no thesis. (Cage figuredprominently in my thesis, which ex-plored the historical development ofelectronic music and the beginnings ofelectronic music studios between 1948and 1953 [7].)

Cage told me that he was naming thepiece Reunion because he wanted tobring together artists with whom he hadbeen affiliated in the past in a homeybut theatrical setting. He and Duchampwould play chess at center stage, and themoves of the game would result in theselection of sound sources and their spa-tial distribution around the audience.Duchamp would sit in a comfortableeasy chair (Cage would be content withan ordinary kitchen chair); Teeny wouldsit close by and watch; my “oscilloscopic”TV sets, on stage, should be in opera-tion; and the chess aficionados at centerstage would drink wine and smoke(Duchamp, cigars; Teeny and Cage,cigarettes) (Fig. 2). All the while, Cage’scomposer-collaborators Behrman,Mumma, Tudor and I would provide theelectronic and electroacoustical soundsof the concert experience. Clearly, Re-union was to be a public celebration ofCage’s delight in living everyday life asan art form.

Cage left the remaining details up tome but told me to contact the Estonian-born Canadian composer Udo Kasemets,who was organizing a festival called“Sightsoundsystems” in Toronto, forwhich Reunion was to be the openingevent (Fig. 3).

Chess had been part of Duchamp’severyday life for decades, and in the1960s it became part of Cage’s everydaylife, too. The composer had reveredDuchamp since their first meeting in1942, but kept his distance “out of admi-ration.” Cage eventually found enoughcourage to ask Duchamp for chess les-sons, essentially as a way of getting toknow him [8]. The setting for Reunionon the Ryerson Theatre stage—with the

imposing chair for Duchamp, the cigarsand cigarettes, the wine and chess—wasan obvious imitation of the scene at theDuchamps’ second-floor New Yorktownhouse apartment when Cageshowed up one or two evenings perweek for “lessons.” “The way Marceltaught was to have Teeny and me playchess. . . . ” recalled Cage. “Now andthen he would come over and remarkthat we were playing very badly. Therewas no real instruction” [9]. In the1950s, Duchamp was considered by theAmerican grand master Edward Laskerto be one of the top 25 chess masters inthe U.S. [10] (see Fig. 4).

THE CHESSBOARD

Other than the stipulation about con-tact microphones and his wish that thechess game would result in the selec-tion and distribution of sounds aroundan audience, Cage made no requestsabout the actual operation of the chess-board. However, since I had an under-standing of his aesthetic posture in thelate 1960s, I made several decisionsabout the chessboard circuitry that Iknew would please him.

Immediately before the openingmove, “silence” (in the Cageian sense)prevailed (see Fig. 5). The two pairs of

Fig. 4. After meeting Marcel Duchamp, Lowell Cross receives instruction on a fine pointof chess from a master. (Photo: Shigeko Kubota)

Fig. 5. Teeny Duchamp, Marcel Duchamp and John Cage, just before the first game began.Duchamp had not yet removed his king’s knight. (Photo: Shigeko Kubota)

38 Cross, Reunion

RESPONSIBILITY

ranks on each side, where the chess-pieces repose before the game begins,were “off” (i.e. not passing a signal)when their 32 photoresistors were cov-ered; the four center ranks were “off”when those remaining 32 photoresistorswere exposed. With 16 inputs (allowingfour signals each from the four collabo-rating composers) and eight outputs(each directed to a loudspeaker system),the complexity of the sound environ-ment enveloping the audience in-creased as the early part of the gameprogressed; it then diminished as fewerand fewer pieces were left on the board.

I followed no particular plan whileconnecting the internal components ofthe chessboard except to ensure thateach of the 16 inputs (designated 1–16)could appear at four of the eight differ-ent outputs (designated A–H). For ex-ample, during the course of a game, asignal at input 1 could appear at outputsB, E, F and/or G (see Fig. 6). My ar-rangement was arbitrary, unplannedand quasi-random, but any of the 16 in-puts had a “chance” of appearing in asmany as four of the eight loudspeakerlocations surrounding the audience. Ifone assumes that the stage was “north”of the theatre seats, the loudspeakerswere arranged as points on a compass:

Fig. 6. Distribution of inputs and outputs of the Reunion chessboard.

Fig. 7. Basic cir-cuitry of the Re-union chessboard.

Cross, Reunion 39

RESPONSIBILITY

loudspeaker A was northwest; B, north;C, northeast; D, east; E, southeast; F,south; G, southwest; and H, west.

Cage’s hope for sound movementduring the game was realized severaltimes during the course of the evening.For example, if Duchamp (White)moved his queen from queen 1 (Q1; in-put 1, output F) to king’s bishop 3 (KB3;input 1, output B), the sound present ininput 1 would move from the loud-speaker at back of the hall (F, south) tothe loudspeaker facing the audience,just below center stage (B, north). Ancil-lary effects of sound choices and motionresulted from the shadows of hands andarms as the players moved pieces; theseadditional elements pleased Cage im-mensely.

While Reunion was supposed to pro-vide a homey atmosphere, it was alsoquite theatrical, with well-defined rolesfor stars (seated at center stage) and bitplayers. The use of photoresistors, oneimbedded in each of the 64 squares, re-quired that the surface of the board beflooded with bright illumination. Thechessboard was in the spotlight, and sowere the stars. Cage did not wish tomake the lighting requirements an is-sue, but he did tell me, “I’m so glad thatMarcel will be in the spotlight.”

The photoresistors and fixed resistorsform a passive resistive matrix (Fig. 7).The inputs and the outputs are unbal-anced “line level” and can operate witheither consumer-grade or professionalaudio equipment; however, the outputsrequire a high-impedance load. Thepurely resistive circuitry attenuates theincoming signals. Accordingly, if asquare is “on” (i.e., passing a signal), 12decibels (dB) gain is required to over-come the attenuation in the two backpairs of ranks, and 24 dB gain is re-quired for the four center ranks.

As seen in Fig. 7, each signal is attenu-ated by a T pad. The two back pairs ofranks have the photoresistors at the in-put; the four center ranks have thephotoresistors connected to ground. Intheir “off” conditions, the two back pairsof ranks (covered) attenuate incomingsignals by an additional 62 dB; the fourcenter ranks (uncovered) attenuate in-coming signals by an additional 56 dB.The circuitry does not allow “off” to becompletely off, but it was close enoughfor Reunion.

The purely resistive circuitry of thechessboard adds an insignificantamount of distortion to audio signals,and the frequency response is very uni-form. After accounting for its broad-

band attenuation figures (see above), itsresponse is down no more than 0.3 dB at20 Hz and 1.3 dB at 20 kHz. The penalty,of course, is the requirement for gainmakeup after attenuation.

I built the device with two tourna-ment-size Masonite™ boards, one ontop with the photoresistors mounted inthe centers of the squares, and the otheras the base. (The Reunion chessboardmay be turned over for a game of “non-electronic” chess.) The two Masonite™boards are separated by ordinary two-by-fours painted black. The two-by-four onWhite’s right-hand side has two open-ings: one for access to the 24 RCA jacks(16 unbalanced inputs, 8 unbalancedoutputs) and the other for the ninecables to the contact microphonesmounted inside (see Color Plate A No. 1and Fig. 8). Its dimensions are 420 ´ 420´ 77 mm, or 16.5 inches square by 3inches high.

THE WINEAs in the design of the chessboard, Cageleft the essential issue of wine entirelyup to me. Knowing that Duchampwould defeat Cage handily in a coupleof games within about an hour, I de-

cided to buy the stars only one bottle ofwine (Fig. 9). This decision was rein-forced by the knowledge that I would bepaying for it myself and that despite myfinancial status as graduate student, Iwould be expected to provide a highquality vintage. The result was a 1964Château Kirwan [11], which I had topurchase with a special “license” toserve it in public, from the Head Officeof the Liquor Control Board of Ontario(LCBO), on Toronto’s Front Street.

“How many bottles of wine?” askedthe LCBO clerk.“One,” I replied.“How many people will be in atten-dance at your event?”“It’s a public concert, perhaps 500.”“And you’re buying only one bottle ofwine, eh?”“Yes.”He wrote this down, and then, with a

quizzical shrug, he handed me my cop-ies of the requisite forms and quicklyproduced a bottle of 1964 ChâteauKirwan from the large storeroom be-hind the counter. Nora provided thewine glasses for the evening.

After Duchamp soundly defeated hisstudent-opponent in the first game (de-spite the handicap), 25 minutes and

Fig. 8. The chess-board partially con-nected. (Photo:Shigeko Kubota)

40 Cross, Reunion

RESPONSIBILITY

over one-half of the bottle of wine hadbeen consumed. We still have the glassfrom which Duchamp drank; the othertwo and the empty bottle are gone. Hisglass is now chipped, after our severalmoves since 1968. If he were alive today,I am sure that Duchamp would com-ment that the chips only complete theoriginal design.

THE FIRST GAMEShortly after the announced time of8:30 P.M. on Tuesday, 5 March 1968, Re-union began. The collaborating compos-ers “gamely” began producing soundsfrom their own pre-existent works, all ofwhich utilized special equipment built,or custom-modified, by the individualartists themselves. Behrman’s contribu-tion was Runthrough, Mumma per-formed his Hornpipe and Swarmer, andTudor—who did not enter into this en-gagement with great enthusiasm—wascontent with the title Reunion. Theworks of Behrman, Mumma and Tudorwere all examples of “live electronic”music, performed continuouslythroughout the evening. My sonic con-tributions were two pieces of pre-re-corded tape music, Video II (B) [12] andMusica Instrumentalis, which also pro-duced the oscilloscopic images on thetelevision screens (see Fig. 3).

As noted above, Duchamp (White)gave his student-opponent Cage (Black)a handicap in this first game, removinghis king’s knight from its square (KN1)and replacing it with a U.S. quarter dol-lar (Fig. 10). With this action, he dem-onstrated his understanding of the func-tion of the chessboard—and, indeed, hisunderstanding of the entire event.Duchamp played his role as chess mas-ter that evening with quiet, unruffleddignity, as though the event was nothingmore than that intended: a part of every-day life. As reported above, he decisivelytrounced Cage within about 25 min-utes—the handicap had no bearing onthe outcome of that game (Fig. 11).

Cage had made a special point of in-viting to Reunion Marshall McLuhan ofthe University of Toronto, then at theheight of his fame as a media guru.McLuhan was one of the composer’s fa-vorite “thinkers” of this period, and Iwas a student in his seminar “Media andSociety” during that 1967–1968 aca-demic year. Udo Kasemets later in-formed me that McLuhan was in the au-dience, remained for the first game, andleft immediately thereafter. I neverasked McLuhan about Reunion, and he

Fig. 9. John Cage makes a move; David Behrman and Gordon Mumma in background.Note bottle of wine at Teeny Duchamp’s feet. (Photo: Shigeko Kubota)

Fig. 10. The Reunion chessboard in 1998, set up with the Duchamp handicap. (Photo:Lowell Cross)

Fig. 11. Marcel Duchamp takes one of John Cage’s pieces. (Photo: Shigeko Kubota)

Cross, Reunion 41

RESPONSIBILITY

never mentioned the event to me or tothe members of the seminar.

THE SECOND GAMEWhile the star performers exchangedamenities, the break between gamesprovided an intermission—and an op-portunity for the exodus of a large seg-ment of the audience. Then, at about9:15 P.M., the scene reverted to the actualcircumstances of the chess “lessons” atthe Duchamps’ New York townhouseapartment at 28 West 10th Street: Cageplayed Teeny, and Duchamp observed(or dozed off; see Fig. 12). The collabo-rating composers again dutifully pro-vided their electronic signals to the in-puts of the chessboard, while the gamebetween Cage and Teeny went on, andon, and on. They were well matched aschess players, and they played seriouslyand deliberately.

Finally, at 1:00 A.M. on 6 March 1968,Duchamp made known his fatigue. Cageand Teeny agreed to adjourn and tocontinue the game in the future. Theevent came to its inconclusive ending.

INTERPRETATIONA large part of Cage’s aesthetic of inde-terminacy centered on his wish to re-move his personality from his art. Hewas able to accomplish, and to justify, hisindeterminate “system”—and that iswhat it was, a well-defined system—byutilizing extramusical means to realizehis works: the I Ching, pitching penniesto arrive at chance operations, makinguse of the imperfections on score paper,randomly dropping squiggle-lined trans-parencies on top of each other, and soon. The idea of using a chess game torealize a musical-theatrical work was oneof his most creative: it simultaneouslyexploited his never-concealed pen-chants for high theatre, the appeal ofchess to intellectualism, and the living ofeveryday life. If nothing else, John Cagewas an intellectual: self-taught, Ameri-can and as original as they come.

His quest for “purposeful purposeless-ness or a purposeless play” [13] was el-egantly defined in his concept of Re-union, but as a musical performance, thework’s ultimate realization was indeedinconclusive. One game ended tooquickly to allow the underlying ideas tobe fully experienced by the audience;the other dragged on for so long that ithad to be postponed due to the exhaus-tion of the principals and the dwindlingaudience. Finally, the circumstances at-

tending Reunion permitted no correla-tion between Cage’s elegantly pro-scribed application of his system of inde-terminacy and his underlying hope thatelegant games of chess could bring forthelegant musical structures. The gamesclearly were not elegant, and I, for one,held no expectation that they couldhave brought forth elegant, or even in-teresting, musical structures. After thisinconclusive event, what remained ofReunion? High theatre, Cage’s appeal tointellectualism, and everyday life.

AFTERWARDThe Toronto newspaper critics wereunanimous in their indignation aboutReunion, as evinced in the 6 March 1968afternoon editions of the Star and thenow-defunct Telegram. William Littler,music critic for the Star, produced aheadline saying the event was “mightyboring.” His colleague and cultural ob-server Robert Fulford found it “infi-nitely boring” and an example of “totalnon-communication, all around” [14].The Telegram’s Kenneth Winters con-cluded that the “fusty, dusty, illustriousvisitors are just about sufficiently fossil-

ized for reverent immurement in a uni-versity” [15]. The editors of the conser-vative Globe and Mail did not condescendto send a reporter to Reunion.

Two additional performances of thework occurred that spring: one at theElectric Circus in New York, the other atMills College in Oakland, California.Even though they lived in New York, theDuchamps stayed away from the ElectricCircus event; Cage found as his chesspartner the editor of The SaturdayEvening Post. In addition to setting upthe chessboard, I instructed Cage’sfriend Jean Rigg in the fine art ofmargarita-making—in the absence ofthe Duchamps, no wine was served. Acontact microphone was affixed to theWaring Blender, margaritas were servedall around as long as there were ingredi-ents, and a grand time was had by all.

At Mills College, I was Cage’s oppo-nent at chess. In keeping with the Cage-Duchamp dress code, I wore a dark suitand tie, but Cage was dressed less for-mally. The reporter for the Oakland Tri-bune, Paul Hertelendy, suggested thatCage’s opponent looked like a memberof the Mafia, or perhaps an FBI agent, inthe incongruous role of chess player. I

Fig. 12. The secondgame. Duchampdozes off; DavidBehrman in back-ground. (Photo:Shigeko Kubota)

42 Cross, Reunion

RESPONSIBILITY

was White, and I made a very bold open-ing, a variation on “Fool’s Mate.” Cagecommented on my aggressiveness as Itook some of his pieces, but that open-ing is dangerous when facing a prac-ticed opponent, and he went on to windecisively. After all, he had been practic-ing quite a bit of chess over the pastweeks, while I had been endeavoring toend my career as a graduate student.

I did not document either the nameof the editor of The Saturday Evening Postor the dates and times of these later per-formances. By this time, Reunion had be-come part of my everyday life, and I wascontent to let it go at that.

THE PLAYERSHenri-Robert-Marcel Duchamp wasborn at home in Blainville, France on 28July 1887. He was one of the most influ-ential figures in twentieth-century avant-garde art. He died on 2 October 1968 athis apartment in Neuilly-sur-Seine (5rue Parmentier), France [16].

John Milton Cage, Jr. was born theson of an inventor in Los Angeles on 5September 1912 [17]. He became oneof the leaders of the twentieth-centurymusical avant-garde. Cage died of a mas-sive stroke on 12 August 1992 [18].

Alexina (Teeny) Duchamp was bornAlexina Sattler on 20 January 1906 inCincinnati [19] and married MarcelDuchamp in 1954. She died on 20 De-cember 1995 at her home in Villiers-sous-grez, France, at the age of 89 [20].

David Eugene Tudor was born inPhiladelphia on 20 January 1926. He be-came one of the premier avant-gardepianists and electronic composers of ourtime, and began working with Cage as amember of Merce Cunningham andDance Company (MCDC) in the early1950s. He took over as the Company’sMusical Director when Cage died. Tu-

dor died in his sleep on 13 August 1996at his home in Tomkins Cove, NY at theage of 70 [21].

Gordon Mumma was born on 30March 1935 in Framingham, MA. From1966 to 1974, he was a composer/musi-cian (with Tudor and Cage) with MCDCand was one of the first composers toutilize electronic circuits of his own de-sign [22]. He is retired from the musicfaculty at the University of California atSanta Cruz.

David Behrman was born on 16 August1937 in Salzburg, Austria [23]. Heformed the Sonic Arts Union in 1966 withMumma, Robert Ashley and Alvin Lucierand was a composer/performer withMCDC from 1970 to 1977. He has sincetaught electronic and computer music atBard, Mills and other U.S. colleges.

Lowell Merlin Cross was born inKingsville, TX on 24 June 1938. He hastaught in the School of Music at TheUniversity of Iowa since 1972.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Juan Maria Solare, an Argentinecomposer living in Germany, whose many emailquestions about Reunion prompted me to write thisarticle 30 years after the event. I am also very grate-ful to Professor Elizabeth Aubrey, musicologist, col-league and dear friend, who patiently read themanuscript and made many helpful suggestions.

References and Notes

1. Calvin Tomkins, Duchamp (New York: Henry Holt& Co., 1996) p. 446.

2. Nicolas Slonimsky, ed., Baker’s Biographical Dictio-nary of Musicians, 6th ed. (New York: Schirmer, 1978)p. 267. In the seventh and eighth editions of Baker’s(1984, 1992), with my prompting, Slonimsky cor-rected the spelling of Duchamp’s name and reportedon a singular chessboard, but retained the erroneousstatement about a computer and “laser rays.”

3. Lowell Cross, “The Audio Control of Laser Dis-plays,” db, the Sound Engineering Magazine 15, No. 7,30–41 (July 1981).

4. David Revill, The Roaring Silence—John Cage: A Life(New York: Arcade Publishing, Inc., 1992), p. 223.

5. Tomkins [1], pp. 445–446.

6. Lowell Cross, “The Stirrer,” Source, music of theavant garde No. 4 (1968) pp. 25–28.

7. Lowell Cross, “Electronic Music, 1948–1953” Per-spectives of New Music 7, No. 1, 32–65 (1968).

8. See Tomkins [1] pp. 410–411.

9. See Tomkins [1] p. 411.

10. See Tomkins [1], p. 289.

11. The château where this 1964 Margaux was pro-duced, Château Kirwan, was confirmed to me inMay 1998 by Mr. Wally Plahutnik, wine merchantfor John’s Grocery, Inc. in Iowa City, after he care-fully inspected the wine label seen in ShigekoKubota’s photographs.

12. The only work heard during Reunion that wasreleased as a recording was my tape music, Video II(B), issued on Source Records No. 5, 1971. The“live electronic” pieces by the other composerswere improvised and ephemeral, never to be heardagain as they were on that evening. However, theentire event was recorded for possible release byCBS/Columbia (David Behrman, producer);present location and condition of the tapes are un-known.

13. John Cage, “Experimental Music,” in Silence(Middletown, CT: Wesleyan Univ. Press, 1961) p. 12.

14. The Toronto Star (6 March 1968).

15. The Toronto Telegram (6 March 1968).

16. See Tomkins [1] pp. 18, 449–450.

17. See Slonimsky [2], 8th ed. (1992) p. 282.

18. Laura Kuhn, Executive Director of The JohnCage Trust, e-mail correspondence to me (3 and 4December 1998). The Reunion chessboard is part ofthe collection of The John Cage Trust.

19. Teeny Duchamp’s birthdate and birthplacewere confirmed to me by her children, JacquelineMatisse Monnier (via fax) and Paul Matisse (viatelephone), on 2 September 1999.

20. Calvin Tomkins, fax correspondence to me, 20May 1998.

21. See the biography section of the David TudorPages, hosted by the Electronic Music Foundationweb site; accessible at <http://www.emf.org/tudor/Life/biography.html>.

22. See the Gordon Mumma page in the on-line art-ist catalog for Lovely Music, accessible at <http://www.lovely.com/bios/mumma.html>.

23. David M. Cummings, ed., International Who’sWho in Music and Musicians’ Directory, 15th Ed.(Cambridge, UK: International Biographical Cen-tre, 1996) p. 65.

Manuscript received 19 January 1999.